The critical point is "a failure to respond to military action against Ukraine would weaken American credibility and invite an attack on Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China."
The author says it's not the case, then goes completely sideways with comparison who Taiwan, and Ukraine are.
What's relevant here is a test of US military might, end of the story.
If US military force falters somewhere, it falters everywhere.
USA is the only country in the world with a global power projection, and capable of seriously hurting anybody it wants, one sidedly.
A failure means every unsavoury power in the world will go, and exploit this opportunity to do something nasty, while the US is incapable of getting them.
Yup. Unfortunately the people of taiwan are going to get an unwelcome wake up call. If powerful armed nations of europe and north america cant stop russia they will certainly not be able to stop china. I am curious if post taiwan india will become a testing ground as it appears fertile land for destabilisation. We shall see how things unravel.
Those are fairly different though. With Taiwan Ukraine-- the involvement would be clear: Country A invades Country B. US intervenes to fight away country A. Losing here would be a HUGE crediblity blow.
It's very different from "nation building" (which has been proven time and time again to be a waste of time, money, and lives). Losing here is more of a factor of fighting ideologies vs. a distinct adversary.
In terms of training and military hardware the US is pretty much unrivaled even by China. But that knowledge suddenly becomes less relevant if it becomes clear we won't use it when it matters.
1) It looks at Ukraine's importance economically and concludes it's not worth it. The reality though is that it's really more about stability with our EU trading partners. If Ukraine falls to Russia suddenly we have to start worrying about supply chains and the economy of Poland, etc. Ripping away the buffer between western and eastern europe will have economic implications.
2) The US' involvement in both cases won't necessarily be similar. It's highly unlikely IMO that we will end up fighting russia directly with US troops. It's pretty clear now that the US approach to Ukraine will be at best arming ukranians and providing indirect support. It's far more effective in Ukraine to make invasion expensive and not worth it than trying to outright push back the Russians out of Crimea too. Between a combination of costly conflict, sanctions taking a toll on the Russian economy and enough resistance, it soon becomes untenable for the Russians to continue. Or at least that's the hope.
3) With Taiwan, the problem is that the PROC is basically increasing risk in the region to the point that with enough time people will start diversifying away from taiwan. We already see this with TSMC starting to build US fabs and Intel now investing heavily again in the domestic US. This doesn't change things in the next 3-5 years but on a longer horizon it does mean Taiwan's economic relevance does become more questionable. The PROC can wait as long as it needs for this to happen.
Russian security support is also not recent! The primary condition of Ukraine's denuclearization was that Russia, along with the United States, France, and UK, would defend Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial claims perpetually. It seems one of these parties signed with disappearing ink.
Exactly - there is no such reputation for Russia and it has proven once again, that words of Russians are not even worth what paper is worth, but for everybody else - it is a trap. It was really naive to give such guarantees - they could be more realistic and demand, that Russia at least remove military bases from territory of Ukraine. Even the current events were because of fears to lose Sevastopol - pride of USSR military(which did nothing in WW2).
US and other signing power reputations is worth more(than Russians) and rest of the world is watching. US has already lost a lot of soft power and this entrapment is another dent in reputation for vaning superpower.
> Or when U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously promised that NATO would “not expand one inch eastward” of Germany?
You've fallen for Russian disinformation. This lie keeps getting spread around and corrected. Baker mentioned this to Gorbachev in preliminary talks for the treaty after the fall of the Berlin Wall, as a "what if? what concessions would the USSR then make?" It was then immediately struck down as an option by other US bureaucrats, never made it into the treaty, and Gorbachev never even mentioned it again until 2008 when he said US never promised this but expanding NATO into Baltics and such was against the "spirit" of the talks. One person, even a Secretary of State, spitballing ideas about what a treaty would look like is not even close to any sort of agreement between entire superpowers.
It happened multiple times. It is not a lie, no matter how much the US state department tries to double down on the amnesia.
>The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.
Russia has publicly expressed regret that it did not get the wording in a treaty though it holds to the idea that assurances made outside of a legal framework are not worthless, whereas to an American legalistic mind it appears, they are.
Probably it would have made no difference anyway. There's no independent court of international law to adjudicate. Treaties and memoranda arent all that different in the end.
It could be partly cultural. I've noticed when dealing with Americans the idea that you cant expect people to keep their word if it's not explicitly written into a contract is quite common. It's also idiosyncratically American - I havent noticed this word-is-worthless/contracts-sacrosanct "if we take you for a ride it's your fault" attitude elsewhere.
> Russia has publicly expressed regret that it did not get the wording in a treaty though it holds to the idea that assurances made outside of a legal framework are not worthless, whereas to an American legalistic mind it appears, they are.
Russia isn't even holding to an actual legal treaty about respecting the sovereign territorial integrity of Ukraine and you're exclusively pissed at Americans for assurances outside of a legal framework?
The expansion of NATO came first in 97- at a point when Russia was militarily at its weakest, and a drunk American puppet was in charge.
Crimea would likely still belong to Ukraine if NATO hadnt done that - eastern europe being a buffer being the presumption built into the negotiations. There was some trust before. There is none now.
As it was, the pushback on NATO against the vulnerable, much invaded western border once Russia recovered economic and military strength was inevitable.
As inevitable as the NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan when in 2001 the Taliban dared to request evidence and a trial while Americans bayed for blood.
> Russia has publicly expressed regret that it did not get the wording in a treaty
At the time in question, Russia wasn't a sovereign subject of international law, but a subordinate entity within the USSR. Mikhail Gorbachev, who was a somewhat important figure in the USSR government at the time, and likely to know, has explicitly stated that such assurances we're not given, nor was the matter negotiated [0] (it is true that the possibility or it being an item on the table seems to have been raised as an inducement to the USSR to participate in resolution of German reunification, but an offer that an issue can be in the table to get someone to the table is not a commitment, even informal, on the anything besides allowing discussion should it be raised.)
>Gorbachev: “I do think that they could have done more. Much of what has since happened has been directly related to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We cannot blame anyone for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, many people in the West were secretly rubbing their hands and felt something like a flush of victory – including those who had promised us: ‘We will not move one centimetre further East.’”
Brookings is about as useful for proving a point on Russia as RT. Might as well quote Trump on who won the last election.
The main issue here is to remember, that promises has to be given to US, to other countries - especially neighbours and to various clans of Libya and citizens of Libya - especially to young and poor hot-heads who are quick to blame their government and Leader. Then and only then you can have guarantee that you, being as a ruler of Libya are not getting rusty trombone... erm, that might be more pleasant, but apparently it was rusty pipe, that was performed on Kadaffi.
Looking how Putin is performing in Russia, it seems more than clear that he will get his rusty pipe in his anus, because the path of getting it is way too similar... Kadaffi got his rusty pipe, after his Navalny-level opponents were forced out and killed and the ones that came next were not into sophiscated and educated arguments, but went straight in with the pipe... and surprise surprise - they were new generation of Libyans, born in Lkadaffi Libya and bred by Khadaffi.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker did not had authority to promise that NATO would “not expand one inch eastward” of Germany. Also in a real nonimaginary world, such "promises" and talks has to be realized as written agreements on paper. Completely different from what Russia signed in a very real Budapest Memorandum.
Khadaffi was killed by American backed rebels supported by NATO. NATO might as well have pulled the trigger.
The main issue is that the US state department (led by Hillary at the time) made it abundantly clear to every tinpot dictator in the world with that stunt that the two worst things they can do are A) denuclearize and B) trust America's word.
North Korea took note of what happened in Libya and as a result Kim Jong Un got a nice little tour of Trump's presidential car.
The word of the US is trash. The security guarantees it gives are trash. They've made it clear that they respect power but everything else gets lip service.
It seems like none of the other parties are defending Ukraine's sovereignty, and one is violating it (Russia). None of them seem willing to keep their defense commitments.
To be fair, given the 2014 events, all the parties signed with disappearing ink. Russia invaded, but the US, France and UK failed their obligation too.
How? Budapest Memorandum only required parties to respect borders, not to defend them. They only need to "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance" when there is threat of using nuclear weapons.
Putin's claim is that he signed it with the legitimate government of Ukraine and that Ukraine is no longer legitimately governed since the Maidan "coup".
It's similar in nature to the UK's insistence that Venezuelan gold cant be sent back to Venezuela - since it is not legitimately governed. Or when revolutions take place and new governments decide that the debts of the "old" government dont apply to the new.
US also threatened sanctions against Ukraine in 2004 in violation of article 3, presumably under the same theory (& because they just didnt like yanukovych).
International law is mostly a matter might makes right and/or opinion it seems. There is no court, after all. One side's coup is another's spontaneous democratic uprising and one side's free and fair elections is another party's rigged ballot.
UK has not seized Venezuelan gold - as soon as Venezuela will get recognized government, UK will restore Venezuelan rights to their gold.
How this even compares to Crimea? Russia has no intention to give Crimea back - no matter what government is in Ukraine. Russia was already very nervous about Sevastopol naval base under Yanukovich, when the rent agreement was running out and that is the only reason for seizing Crimea, as this allows it to maintain than naval base. It is also a theft, as so far Russia was paying rent for that base and now it doesn't have to.
Ask Venezuelans what should happen to the gold and majority would say give it back. Access was cut off precisely when they needed funds the most.
Crimea won't be given back, no. They ran a vote and asked the majority ~85% ethnic Russian Crimeans which country they'd like to belong to and, after maidan, the outcome was a forgone conclusion with or without the boycotts.
Ukraine and western powers tellingly opted to argue that the vote was wrong because it was in violation of Ukraine's constitution rather than it didnt reflect the will of those voting.
Even if Western powers didnt routinely flout international law when it suited them (e.g. supporting Israeli settlements on stolen land), it's a little bit awkward to declare a democratic vote illegal if you're trying to position yourself as the world's #1 fan of democracy.
Ironically if America could have held itself to higher ethical standards in the last two decades it would probably be in a better position to push Russia's new expansion back.
Russia is not interested in invading Ukraine.However, if the Ukraine nationalists severely escalate the civil war against the Donbass, Russia would almost certainly step in.
There is almost no risk of a major, nationwide war. I would wish that this faux "crisis" could teach more people to be highly critical of anything coming from any of the 5 eyes states (And thus anything in the Western MSM.)
He seems to be saying that Ukraine is not strategically important enough to bother with (they dont even make chips!), which mirrors Biden's weird comment about how a small incursion would be ok.
See the problem is that ukraine doesnt need to make chips to be important. Since the second world war the world has been split in half. West europe and america on one side and east europe and the soviets on the other side.
Africa, asia, the middle east, and latin america have been split between these two enormous social, economic and cultural blocks. Dictatorships and democracies in countries of these continents have one way or another been dismantled or assembled by one side or the other.
A weak response from nato to russia in ukraine means a weak west and a weak west means a strong china. The people of taiwan and pretty much anywhere outside europe and north america should pay attention to whats happening because the actions here will define their future. Just like in Georgia and Syria and now Ukraine Russia has proven that where it enters it can never be kicked out regardless of sanctions or military might.
China probably understands this and as such it took swift and decisive action in HK. Barely any response from the west.
If China is entering taiwan there will be zero reaponse as it has been proven that there is simply nothing short than total annihilation to stop Russia and China.
1. Taiwan was not part of neither communist China or Chinese Republic, so neither of them have claim on this territory.
2. Up till 1945 Formosa was was territory of Japan. It can be compared to Prussia, that from 1945 is currently occupied by Russia. After 1945 US still has all the rights to decide status of Formosa.
3. It could have been independet Formosa, but apparently for political reasons US 75 years ago decided to let Chinese take over this territory and oppress natives of this island and deny dream of native Formosians to be free and independent and erase history of these people by both Japanese and also Chinese and US has taken part in another deadly sin of theirs - once again in erasing natives.
Both Russia and Ukraine are new countries, that arised from USSR.
US(along with Russia) has signed agreement about guaranteeing territorial integrity of Ukraine. It apparently meant nothing for Russia, but with this agreement US has signed a trap, because apparently that also means, that US signed treaties are not worth anything...
* There has been talks, that Ukraine is corrupt country, but apparently it is ok for US goverment officials(and relatives) to deal with corrupt countries for financial gains, because from ancient Roman times "money does not stink". This involvement in corruptions is nothing new - Hillary Clinton in similar fashion(when dealing with Western Sahara) destroyed mining industry in US, so these things are coming full cycle and affects US, too.
* For the same reasons it is ok for Western companies to invest in corruptive countries for profit, that is shared with local thieves, that are robbing their own people.
There are no similarities between Taiwan and Ukraine, however war in Ukraine is linked to Taiwan and China will be watching how the things are going to progress there. So, this is a test trial for US - what it is going to do about this? Russia has become dog of China and China is not commanding Russia(yet), but Russia acts as a dog, that likes to impress owner, when rattling chain and barking on neighbour.
China might attack Taiwan, while Russia is attacking Ukraine. Despite what author is writing, attack of Russia on Ukraine is a dire warning to all of Eastern Europe and stirs up 100 years old memories, that behaviour of Russia is unpredictable and who knows who will be next.
Russia is still pushing borders of what is acceptable to them and so far Europe and US has not stopped them. Btw, some of Scandinavian countries are not in NATO, so essentially they are a free snack for next aggression after Ukraine, before final real escalation with NATO.
The issue with China attacking Taiwan is quite opposite - China might be forced to attack Taiwan, to try to end supremacy of US, just like Japan was forced to attack US. Talk about economic reasons is from previous century. Changes in economy are happening all the time - it is not constant state- if for whatever reasons US economy becomes weak, US does not allow China access to it, most of US owned factories are relocated outside of China - does it really makes sense to claim, that China still won't risk breaking economic contacts with US, because uh - oh... they have economic ties, if suddenly there are none anymore?
Russian patriotism nowadays is about war - it seems, that Chinese have similar mindset. And this is a very big question - why chinese also have this mindset, that Russians have? Whom are they going to attack?(China also have claims on Russian territories). No idea, why Chinese lost cool and started to argue with US and started to use military talk, as it was too early, unless we know nothing about Chinese. There are political talks and then there is a street talk and it knows more, than any analytical mind.
It does not matter - those people are ready for war - it all depends if leaders of China decides if it is time to attack. Collective Putin thinks, that attacking Ukraine is their right and in their minds they are already prepared to invade Ukraine and the only question is if it is total invasion of Ukraine(just like finalized integration of Belarus into Russia), or only biggest part of it(just like USSR initially did not had western Ukraine). So, it all depends on how successfully Ukraine will defend itself and what US gonna do. Because, frankly - US has been sh!t so far and it does not help, that European powers are even worse and they have made Russia as it is, because they were so stupid, that they thought that criminals can become business men and become civilized.
And rightly given back to the Republic of China in 1945 (hence why the Chinese government retreated there in 1949...)
Those claims related to changing regimes are of course disingenuous and only aimed at creating a false narrative. It is fake history for political purposes.
I am not asserting anything. I am stating that Taiwan is indeed Chinese territory, historically and today.
Now, there has been (arguably still is) a civil war and the overall territory of China is split with both sides claiming the whole but only one side is strong enough to think they still have a shot a it.
Now, to go back to the article, it serves the US' interests to support one side against the other hence why they do it, in the same way that it serves their interests to 'grab' Ukraine against Russia. It's the same old global Great Game.
This is poor understanding about internationally recognized rights on owning territories, that has nothing to do with history and who owned them centuries ago.
Today Qing are as relevant, as Russian historical claims on California.
Undeniable rights for native people to claim their native lands. In a global scale not really seeing what is so special about Israel compared to native people of US, who are displaced from their lands for ceturies, but still maintain claims on their lands. It is only a question of mere 1500 years to get their lands back. Maybe they can succeed quicker than Jews - only time will tell.
Qing were Manchu - not Han. Though, the comparision should be about CCP influence, otherwise all Americans should be scared of all naturalized Chinese, as if all Han are the same...
I mean, you are not wrong about big picture, though you are missing very small, but important detail, that they migrated there, because they were not communists and they are still not communists.
Yeah, given that they started migrating there (by the millions) decades before The Communist Manifesto was written -- it's probably pretty safe to say that most of them were not communist.
> I see nothing about coming to the aid of Ukraine
Red herring. The text is a commitment to respect territorial integrity (as nekcihc correctly said and you questioned) not to aid it.
In particular:
2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
That's Russia guaranteeing that "that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."
And the us isn't using their weapons against Ukraine. They are fully respecting their boundaries, just not going to war over them. Russia is clearly in violation, not the USA
Of course. Nobody claimed otherwise. The argument made by nekcihc
with this agreement US has signed a trap, because apparently that also means, that US signed treaties are not worth anything
is not that the US is violating the agreement; it is that an agreement signed by the US (among others) has been continuously violated (by Russia) since 2014 so "US signed treaties are not worth anything".
The critical point is "a failure to respond to military action against Ukraine would weaken American credibility and invite an attack on Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China."
The author says it's not the case, then goes completely sideways with comparison who Taiwan, and Ukraine are.
What's relevant here is a test of US military might, end of the story.
If US military force falters somewhere, it falters everywhere.
USA is the only country in the world with a global power projection, and capable of seriously hurting anybody it wants, one sidedly.
A failure means every unsavoury power in the world will go, and exploit this opportunity to do something nasty, while the US is incapable of getting them.